Crossley v. Cuts aRe Us, 2016 HRTO 586

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Aidan Crossley Applicant

-and-

Cuts aRe Us aka Cuts Are Us Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: May 3, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 586 Indexed as: Crossley v. Cuts aRe Us

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Aidan Crossley, Applicant Holly Robertson, Representative

Cuts aRe Us aka Cuts Are Us, Respondent Jane Slark-Perez, Representative

1This Application is scheduled for hearing on May 4 and 5, 2016, pursuant to a Notice of Hearing dated November 19, 2015.

2On May 1, 2016 at 11:30 p.m., Ms. Slark-Perez emailed the Tribunal advising that an immediate family member had been hospitalized, which impacted on her office appointments and preparation for the hearing. She requests an adjournment of the hearing. For the purposes of this Interim Decision, the personal details behind the adjournment request are not set out. On May 2, 2016, Ms. Slark-Perez submitted a letter from the hospital, dated May 2, 2016, confirming that the family member had been admitted. The letter says that the immediate family member’s length of stay is unknown.

3The applicant opposes the adjournment request because of the short notice. She says that she will respect any decision of the Tribunal. She submits, through her representative, that she is sensitive to the issues, but that the applicant and her witnesses have taken time to prepare and taken time off work to be in attendance for the hearing.

analysis and decision

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling states as follows about adjournment requests:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournment outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. Requests for adjournment, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. When the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax.

5As set out in the Practice Direction, and as confirmed in the Tribunal’s decisions, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal has explained its rationale for taking such positions in a number of cases including Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660. At para. 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceedings must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ disputes will no longer be used. For that reason, among others, the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments indicates that even adjournment requests made on consent of the parties more than five [now fourteen] days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of the parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five [now fourteen[ days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

6In this case, Ms. Slark-Perez’s immediate family member has been recently hospitalized. In addition, the reasons for the hospitalization, the hospital’s letter confirming the admission, and the unknown duration of the hospitalization, all contribute to my finding that this is an exceptional circumstance.

7The respondent’s adjournment request is granted. The May 4 and 5, 2016 hearing dates are cancelled. The Tribunal will canvass alternate hearing dates with the parties’ representatives.